Understanding Social Movements: Processes and Overlapping Phenomena - Prof. Pamela E. Oliv, Study notes of Political Sociology

Download Understanding Social Movements: Processes and Overlapping Phenomena - Prof. Pamela E. Oliv and more Study notes Political Sociology in PDF only on Docsity! 1 Pamela Oliver Revised 9/2003 Lecture Notes: Overview of Concepts/Theory in Social Movements Part ONE Identifying what we are studying. Our study is organized around the phenomena of social movements, but we do not restrict our attention only to social movements. Instead, we study movement processes, that is, the processes that occur in social movements, recognizing that all these processes also occur in other phenomena. The following graphic may aid discussion: Social movements overlap with and shade off into each of these. Old idea was that there was the world of normal democratic politics, and movements were a frightening aberration that threatened the stability of democratic society. People writing in the 1950s really said that it was antidemocratic to picket or demonstrate to try to force legislators to vote the way one wanted. We are now in a world where social movements are seen as part of democracy, as creating a path to democracy. When we study social movements, we can't sort them into piles: this is a movement, this isn't, and we'll study only pile A. We can't learn useful things about movements by insisting that we will examine them only at the level of a movement as a whole. We study what happens in movement organizations, and that will be the same as much of what happens in non-movement voluntary associations. That's OK. We'll study what happens in a riot, and much of the process will be the same regardless of whether it is part of a movement or not. There are general processes by which ideology and public opinion develop, whether relevant to a movement or not. Mass upswellings from below are often linked with elitist interventions from above, and we have to know how those elite interventions work if we want to understand social movements, and not 2 just discount them. [This principle applies to term papers. The thing you study does not necessarily have to be itself a social movement, as long as it is relevant to the study of social movements. You can study a goal-oriented voluntary association, or public opinion on an issue, or the personal changes people experienced from participation in a movement event. Or the movement and nonmovement efforts that went into passing (or defeating) a piece of pro-movement legislation. Or you can focus on a phenomenon or process that occurs both within and outside social movements.] IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH You cannot study a whole SM at once. It is too big, diffuse, shifting. You cannot analyze all aspects of it at once: cannot simultaneously consider individual motives, historically determined social-economic forces, and interorganizational dynamics. Social movements have no distinct boundaries, but research must be bounded. You can study specific processes that occur within social movements. You can study individual backgrounds or motives, recruitment processes, ways in which people become committed, patterns of organization, ways in which totally different types of campaigns interact and affect each other over time, factors that lead to certain types of outcomes. You can examine patterns and processes within certain kinds of events: riots, public opinion shifts, formation of organizations, marches, government lobbying. In studying parts of movements, it is important to look for commonalities and differences between movements. It is false to assume that all movements are alike, that what is true in one movement is necessarily true in others. Eg "generational politics" of 1960s students movements are probably irrelevant to peace movement or women's movement of 1970s and 1980s. But it is also false to assume that every movement is wholly unique, that there are no commonalities. The social scientific goal is to look for PRINCIPLES that tell you when to expect movements to be similar and in which ways, and when to expect differences. If you are a beginning student in this topic, you do not have to worry a lot about this, just keep in mind that researchers ought to be thinking about TYPES of movements that would be similar to each other in some dimension, and when you do a project, try to think about which types of movements your movement is similar to, in terms of which parts of theory might be relevant. If you are an advanced student, you should be training yourself to look explicitly for principles distinguishing types of movements from each other, should be aware that movements may sort differently depending on what aspects of them you are looking at, and should try explicitly to bound your theoretical ideas with statements of the conditions under which you expect them to apply. In short, when you are thinking about doing a project, you should be thinking about doing some specific aspect of some specific movement or type of movement event. OVERALL FRAMEWORK (BRIEF) 5 oriented toward some general social change goal. (e.g. the peace movement, the women's movement, the black movement). [Marwell & Oliver's definition] Another definition (McCarthy and Zald, 1977) that is more commonly used: a social movement is a set of preferences for social change. Both definitions define the boundaries of an SM in terms of a social change goal, but McZ say the movement is the preferences, while Oliver says the movement is the actions. Other definitions agree about the goal but say the movement is a set or group of people pursuing the goal. For most purposes, you don't need to choose between these definitions, as they generally point you in the same direction. Most social movements have diffuse and vague boundaries, with movement participants disagreeing about who is in the movement and who is not. A. Adherents support the goals of the movement. Beneficiaries stand to benefit personally from the movement. Constituents are adherents who identify with the movement. If you support the goals but hate the movement, you are an adherent who is not a constituent. Conscience constituents are people who support a movement even though it won't benefit them (e.g. white supporters of black movement, wealthy supporters of working class movement). B. Participants engage in movement activities; contributors give money to movement organizations. Members would have to be members of particular organizations (see below); a "movement" as a whole is not a single entity with a membership list, but it is common for the term "movement member" to be used casually by non-specialists to refer to participants, contributors, constituents, or sometimes even adherents. It is important to realize that the "goal" we are talking about can be extremely vague and ill-defined. We may also speak of "movements" during periods of more unorganized turmoil when aggrieved populations collectively express their discontent without articulating well- defined proposals for change. In such cases the "goal" is "make things better for farmers, or peasants, or poor urbanites." In the US in the 1970s and 1980s, most campaigns and movements have been very much like interest groups: fairly well-defined organizations pursuing fairly well- defined goals by seeking to persuade legislative bodies, administrations, or courts to act as they desire. Protest activities have generally been tactical moves within this context. Thus, the vast majority of recent US literature concerns such explicitly goal-oriented actions and the principles which guide them, but this should not be construed as the defining element of our field of study. Of course, there have been many periods in the US which have seen complex movements combining more organized and more unorganized protests. US women's movement looks like this. SOME CONFUSING TERMS Collective behavior vs collective action vs collective event. You might think they are synonyms, but they are not (although they are becoming more so). In American sociology, the collective behavior tradition studied emergent phenomena such as panics, fads, riots, etc. Collective behavior was defined as behavior occurring without the structure of institutionalized norms. Heavy connotations of irrationality, craziness. Even for people who rejected such negative images, certainly behavior that is not everyday, not normal. Defined that way. 6 Enter a new theoretical generation, one that identifies with movement goals and wants to stress the continuity of movements with everyday political life. The people in movements are going to be conceived as rational actors. What will you talk about what they do? The term collective behavior can't be used, because it has become entirely intertwined with a theoretical approach. So you use the word phrase collective action instead. This comes to connote rational purposive goal-oriented action. Now, what are you going to do if you want to talk neutrally about people doing something together without inherently implying that their action is rational or irrational, purposive or expressive, governed by institutionalized norms, or not? Either collective behavior or collective action is encumbered by theoretical baggage. So, enter the term collective event, which is so far neutral. These polarities are beginning to break down. Ten years ago, even five years ago, I always used the term collective action, because I work in the "rationalist" tradition, and would never say that I work in the field of collective behavior. Now I would. The current wave of theorizing is to integrate these different theoretical strands and, as this happens, language is getting less polarized. But there are still these different connotations which you should be aware of. SOME TYPOLOGIES OF MOVEMENTS Herbert Blumer, "Social Movements". General social movement. Labor movement, youth movement, women's movement, peace movement. Gradual and pervasive changes in attitdues, sense of selfe; sporadic, ill-defined protest. no organization. talk, individual action. [same breadth as our idea of whole social movement, but content is different, since we encompass organized action within a whole movement] Specific social movement. well-defined objective or goal; organization, structure. recognized leadership. [this seems more like a movement campaign, or a specific organization.] Can be reform or revolutionary. Expressive movements do not seek to change the social order. Ends in themselves. e.g. religious movements. Revival and nationalistic movements. Revival movements idealize the past; nationalistic movements among a subordinate people within a larger system often have nationalistic elements. Roberta Ash Garner. (1) class-conscious revolutionary movement, aimed at seizing the state to alter class structure. (2) reform movement. not change relations or production or seize state. (3) counterrevolutionary movement; restore status quo ante. (4) coup d'etat. (5) nonpolitical: do not recognize existence of power differences. Neil Smelser. (1) value-oriented, serious challenge to basic values of society. [ie radical] (2) norm-oriented, accept values but change rules [i.e. reform]. Aberle. 2x2. Locus of change: society vs individual. Amount of change: total vs partial. (1) 7 Transformative: total change of society. millennial movements. (2) Reformative: Partial change of society. e.g. NOW, SANE. (3) Redemptive: total change of self. e.g. sects. (4) Alterative: partial change of self, e.g. WCTU, Birth Control League. Turner and Killian (1st ed). Purpose of movement. (1) Value: emphasis on program for social change. (2) Power: acquire power. (3) participation: gratify through self-expression. In 2nd edition, stress that all movements have all three orientations, but differ in which is dominant. AN EMPIRICAL INVENTORY. This is not an analytic typology, but it is probably useful to distinguish movements by the types of actions and goals they involve. (1) Nationalist. Broad-based upswellings of an oppressed population. Deep intertwining of movement and community. Mixture of organized action and mass protest. May pursue either independence (if a majority in a geographic area) or improved status (if a minority). Wide diversity within this group, ranging from nonviolence to armies of liberation. (2) Collectivist. sporadic, repeated uprisings of an oppressed population, but lacking organized action as part of the whole. peasants. (3) Narrow reform movements. Organizations or sets of individuals pursuing rather limited reform goals. Often dominated by a very few people. Organizations smallish, goals narrow. If you were worried about definitions, you probably wouldn't want to call these true social movements. However, there is nearly always some larger public opinion about this issue which is affected by movement campaigns, and there are often inter-organizational relations, changes in individual behavior, and even crowd events involved. drunk driving, child abuse. (4) Broader reform movements. Larger both in personnel and goals. Issues defined to encompass broad social change. Multiple organizations (usually competing), diverse goals, interplay of individual and organizational action, often including peaceful or even disruptive protests. (5) Movement sects. Small isolated organizations with grandiose and sweeping social change goals but no mass base. Often become most interested in personal change and living the morally or politically correct lifestyle. Dominate their members' lives. Become redemptive organizations, in Aberle's sense. (6) Top-down mass mobilizations. Those in power encourage or foment mass mobilization or upheaval to increase public support for their programs and policies. Mass demonstrations and propaganda campaigns may activate public opinion. People may be mobilized to use intimidation to force others to comply with government policies. All collective mobilizations, even those started at the top, can come to have a life of their own, and sometimes the mass action goes in directions not anticipated or desired by those who started it. [This category might also apply to some cases of opposition leaders initiating actions which they lose control of.] In other cases, there is no genuine mass mobilization, and there is nothing more than a big publicity campaign, perhaps accompanied by required attendance at rallies. (7) Ideational, ideological or intellectual or discursive movements. Here I am meaning to point to "movements" whose actions are principally those that involve the creation and communication of ideas. All movements have ideational elements, but there are definitely movements among people who trade in ideas (including academics, artists, polemicists, etc.) Ideational movements are often linked to other kinds of movements. 10 B. Social Movement Organizations (SMOs or sometimes MO's, movement organizations, or sometimes PMO's, protest movement organizations) are organizations whose reason for existence is the social movement: NAACP, CORE, SNCC, SCLC; National Right to Life, Operation Rescue, National Abortion Rights Action League, Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights; National Organization for Women. In the U.S., almost all movements have one or more SMO's in them (and the big movements have many), but you can have a social movement with no SMO's, and there are other countries in which this is common. C. Other organizations which exist for other reasons are often important players in social movements, including especially professional organizations, unions, political parties, interest groups, churches and other religious groups (both local congregations and national organizations), social clubs, colleges and universities (and sometimes high schools), mutual benefit associations, and charitable foundations and organizations. "Pre-existing organizations" in social movements parlance. The historical record shows such organizations sometimes starting movements, sometimes joining them in process in "bloc recruitment," and sometimes acting as allies or off-stage providers of resources. D. There are also smaller special-purpose organizations like neighborhood groups, or ad hoc committees around some issue. Again, these may be a peculiarly American phenomenon, although they have become increasingly common in some other countries. These groups sometimes are parts of, or the origins of, larger social movements. Other times, they just stand alone on their own terms. E. Much of social movement life is inter-organizational relations, cooperation and competition, coalitions, alliances, conflicts, and disputes. Organizations research and theory has a lot to say about organizations in social movements. However, this theory must recognize that most SMO's (and "preexisting organizations," for that matter) are voluntary associations, and volunteers create rather different organizational dynamics from paid employees. All the organizations involved in social movements, except the Catholic Church (viewed globally), are on the small side. Although the larger ones have paid staff, they do not approach anything like the scale of big business. Those with paid staff have some of the dynamics of small businesses. Paid staff sometimes have the job of coordinating and managing volunteers. F. Some social movements are rooted in or create communities in addition to or instead of organizations. The constituents of many movements live together in the same regions or urban areas, either in relatively homogeneous areas, or intermingled with others. Even if their areas are physically mixed, many movement constituents have a social community that is entirely or overwhelmingly other movement constituents. They live, eat, socialize, and worship (if they worship at all) with people who share their commitments. They may also study or work together. Movements differ in the extent to which their constituents create communities. (Buechler; also much research, e.g. Kriesi, Opp, Portes, Epstein, McAdam, Morris, Johnston, J. Miller on SDS etc etc etc) G. Small groups are always important in movements, sometimes on their own, other times embedded in larger organizations or communities. People often decide what they believe and decide what to do within the context of small groups of friends and family. Even big national organizations tend to have small groups within them where people spend their time: local chapters, study groups, task forces, committees, support groups, base communities. (Gary Alan Fine) 11 H. "Free Space" (Evans and Boyte). People who are being oppressed cannot organize action or create new ideologies if they cannot talk to each other without their oppressors watching. In repressive or oppressive contexts, talking may be virtually impossible. Places where people can meet are crucial. Churches have often played this role, presumably because the religious cloak was at least somewhat protective. Any other available place that opens up can play the same role. In countries which do not repress civil associations, there are many potential places to meet, but often (at least in the US), it is hard to get people out, away from the TV. I. It is important to remember that the organized parts of a constituency usually (not always) have the most influence in a movement. You need to look at specifically who is organized, not just the broader constituency whom they represent. People can and often do represent the interests of others, and people will often feel that someone legitimately represents their interests even if they are wealthier or more educated. But this relationship is always problematic, and one should never assume either that people do represent whom they claim to represent, or that people have to be from a group to be able to speak for the group. III. Political process. A. Model: structure of political AND ECONOMIC opportunities, level of organization within the population, collective assessment of prospects for insurgency. The idea is that there is an ongoing interplay and struggle between those who have power and those who do not. This is sometimes oversimplified as a mechanistic matter of counting political resources, but that would be incorrect. IV. STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES A. Political opportunities. context. State repression, conventional politics, state crises, all create the contexts within which movement possibilities increase or decrease. 1. ups and downs in state repression. state terrorism, armies in the streets. criminal prosecutions. colleges can be closed, admissions processes can screen out radicals. 2. close elections, swing votes, appeals to the lower classes to win elections. 3. elite support, for their own ends (or to quell protest). elites can and do seek to mobilize "the masses" in support of wars, in attacks on ethnic or racial minorities, in favor of environmental cleanup and women's rights. 4. other movements at the same time create a context of disruption or a model for success. 5. regime crises, general instability. economic collapse. state vulnerability can open the possibility of seizing power, or at least being left alone, but can also make it impossible for the state to do what you want (social provision, protect minorities). B. Older ideas were simple more vs less protest, but newer ideas are more the relations between structures and what kind of action or protest. C. Economic structures. What is capital doing. Class relations. Is economy strong or weak. Position in global economy. You need to look both at the nation as a whole, and at the specific circumstances of the groups and local communities in question. D. Global politics and economics. Who has military power. Who controls the international purse strings. Global pressures often have major effects on the actions and policies 12 of nation-states. E. Resources can come from outside the constituency. There is a continuum from completely outside to completely inside with many gradations along the way. The most usual pattern in a protest mobilization is for initial protest and resources for protest to come from inside a group, and the initiators pull in outside resources. Those inside often ask outsiders for financial or political help. Once a protest is rolling, outside money and help often comes in larger quantities. 1. In the US and Europe in the late 1960s and early 1970s, money was often donated by elites to try to channel or control protest into moderate directions; this pattern still is common. Especially in the 1980s and 1990s, other elite money and other support comes from private charitable foundations and organizations, often apparently as movement supporters, not controllers. It is nevertheless true that a dependence on money pulls movement groups in the directions people are willing to pay. 2. This seems especially true for religious groups. Black church in the US, of course. Fundamentalist and evangelical Christian churches in the US seem to be funding a lot of right-wing politics, although there is some evidence that it was right-wing politicians who initiated this activity. Factions of the Catholic Church, and the protestant World Council of Churches and National Council of Churches from the 1970s on had fairly radical ideologies and social change agendas with themes of "liberation theology," "preferential option for the poor," and "peace and justice"; these church organizations were major players in the pro-democracy movements in Latin America. 3. Besides money, outside groups can help create organization. Highlander Folk School in US; Midwest Academy. Communist Party. Brazilian Catholic Church pioneered creation of base communities, which became political force. 4. Early theorists sometimes claimed that external resources were causative: for the civil rights movement, at least, the daily clearly indicate that the protests started first and the external resources followed. Nevertheless, national and, increasingly, international resource flows are important. Labor organizers, communist/socialist organizers have been important. Foundation and church money is very important for supporting social change organizations in the US and, increasingly, around the world. UN and World Bank money is often crucial in determining which projects will happen. E. It is important to remember that there are always differences within any movement, especially class differences within other movements. Different factions of a movement generally have different political and economic resources, and often differ in their ability to attain their specific goals within the larger movement context. V. Ideologies, Ideas, Constructions of Collective Identities, Issues, and Frames. A.To be able to act in a movement, people have to understand the meaning of their actions, they have to decide that what they are doing makes sense within the way they understand the world. This is ideology. B. Components of a Movement Ideology: Diagnosis = What the problem is and what caused it; Prognosis = What needs to be done; Call to Action = why you need to do it now. C. Additionally, there is (perhaps only sometimes) a sense of group identity, a "we" that the movement represents and that one is part of. A "collective identity" is usually understood as